being a fan of the krag-jorgensen rifle,

1
while aware of its alleged faults, vis-a-vis the mauser rifle, imagine my pleasure at stumbling upon this report, just in from the spanish-american war.
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesm ... 076017.pdf
despite these putative flaws, i find the krag to be very pleasant to handle and shoot, light, slim, and smooth in operation. the unusual mechanism is no impediment to the casual shooter, and in fact enhances the experience. if you stumble upon one of these beauties, sporterized or not, i recommend it.
Last edited by lurker on Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Re: being a fan of the krag-jorgensen rifle,

3
Neat!

I have two American sporters and an untouched Norwegian. All are breathtakingly accurate. One of the Americans is responsible for my personal best group with iron sights.

Until very recently, they were still the gun of choice for mad minute competition in Norway. They may be less convenient for clip loading, but they are very fast to cycle.
Image

Re: being a fan of the krag-jorgensen rifle,

5
The main weakness of the Krag doesn’t seem to be with the rifle itself but with the Army’s leadership at the time. They didn’t want soldiers to have a rapid fire rifle with a large capacity magazine. Even after they adopted the Springfield, they required soldiers to load and fire one round at a time — hence the on/off selector switch where the bolt can be removed. Good thing they wised up before 1917.

Interesting article too. I did a little Googling of Stanhope Sams, and he sounds like a fascinating guy (despite his pronouncement that the Krag could shoot “on a straight line” for 600 yards).

Re: being a fan of the krag-jorgensen rifle,

6
BungalowBill wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:22 pm The main weakness of the Krag doesn’t seem to be with the rifle itself but with the Army’s leadership at the time. They didn’t want soldiers to have a rapid fire rifle with a large capacity magazine. Even after they adopted the Springfield, they required soldiers to load and fire one round at a time — hence the on/off selector switch where the bolt can be removed. Good thing they wised up before 1917.

Interesting article too. I did a little Googling of Stanhope Sams, and he sounds like a fascinating guy (despite his pronouncement that the Krag could shoot “on a straight line” for 600 yards).
i've seen the doctrine discussion before, especially with regard to the 1911 and .45 acp. from what i've seen, the army had stopped issuing .45 caliber revolvers before the span-am war, and officers carried lighter .38 revolvers which proved inadequate when facing "savages" who would take hits and keep coming. 9mm, .38 and such were deemed adequate for "civilized" warfare, but not for fighting warrior cultures. the same complaints were lodged against the .30-40 krag cartridge. though more powerful, i don't really see the 30-03 (and 06) which replaced it as that much of an improvement. note that all this was going on shortly after frederick jackson turner in his "frontier thesis" declared that the american frontier was closed, i.e. no more indian fighting.

now i'm off to google mr. sams. eta: newspaperman, war correspondent. i would expect him to have a layman's understanding of ballistics. he's repeating something he was told, probably misunderstood.
Last edited by lurker on Tue Jun 18, 2019 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
i'm retired. what's your excuse?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests