Krag Sidebox Blamed For Inaccuracy

[Knute1]

In a Collier's rag dated March 1, 1902 was the announcement of "Our Wonderful New Army Rifle", which would be the 1903 Springfield. It was, of course, touted superior to the Krag-Jorgensen. I found the following paragraph in the article very interesting. Not that anybody else ever considered this, I just didn't know that it was as well known that the side-box was an issue.

"The new Springfield will have, it is announced, a central feed, and thereby do away with the side-box attachment of the Krag-Jorgensen. Prominent ordnance officers ascribe all the erratic shooting of the Krag to the presence of the side-box."

I always thought that the "side-box" is what gives the Krag-Jorgensen the cool-factor and that the gun itself can be very accurate.

Here is the link. Hit the tab in the right scroll bar to get you to the article. Somewhat hard to read.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Co ... frontcover

[FredC]

Knute,
Sorry, I got mixed up some of my earlier post was meant to be here. Your 2 posts were relatively close together and I had the problem with SpamHaus.

I can not say I would agree with that idea that the side box causes any inaccuracy, feeding from the bottom is more accurate than the side, WHY? The increased vertical height of the Krag makes the action more rigid than others. The 2 weak spots that potentially affect Krag accuracy are the lack of a front hold down screw near the barrel and the small bearing surface where the barrel and receiver meet. In practice I have heard it took many years for the 1903 Springfield to catch the Krag in competition.

Other poorly informed persons say the Krag shoots higher in the rain because of the single locking lug. Can not see how water on the locking lug could cause that. If the same person said the wood stock swells and lengthens when wet and bends the barrel up because of the barrel bands, I would say that sounds plausible. Water molecules are tiny and would not move the bolt around if you poured it through the action. A moly or fiber grease with large chains of molecules could move the bolt around for a shot or two till the grease was displaced, but that would be a stretch for moving the bullet strike higher on the target. I just can not see why either of these ideas are not just old wives tales.

[butlersrangers]

I don't recall reading about "accuracy problems", per se, with the U.S. Krag.

There were lots of ammunition issues in the early days of the .30-40 cartridge, such as: developing a stable & practical "smoke-less" propellant, primer composition, bullet jacket material, and bullet construction.

Possibly, "accuracy" was being confused with 'sight-calibration', 'bullet drift' and 'barrel harmonics' issues?

Maybe individually, a Krag rifle was capable of making accurate groups, but, not necessarily to the 'point of aim'.
A batch of early Krag rifles probably seemed to shoot all over the place. (They were not calibrated or regulated).

With a fixed front-sight base, and no 'windage' adjustment (in the first rear-sights), a group of early Krag rifles probably shot to many different points of impact.

In 1894 to 1897, a soldier could not take an unfamiliar Krag rifle, with issued sights, to the firing line and expect it to be "sighted-In". With no windage adjustment, a shooter had to learn 'where' a Krag shot and use "Kentucky-Windage". This had to be frustrating to Good Shooting.

(If a rifle doesn't hit the target aimed at, some writers might confuse "Not Zeroed or Sighted-In", with "Not Accurate").

Subsequent U.S. service rifles, like the 1903 Springfield and M-1 Garand, had front-sights that could be adjusted for windage and elevation. (The front base could be drifted and different blade heights were available).
Rifles could leave the Armory, (roughly) sighted-in and the rear-sight was adjustable.

IMHO - This developed from lessons learned with the Krag, its manufacture, and use. The Ordnance Department was discovering & overcoming problems and inventing solutions in the Krag era.

[Knute1]

I have seen different articles about the side-box issue and this is the earliest. Can't say that I know it to be definitely a problem. Have not seen it to be scientifically proven either way. But the Krag is very accurate with good sights. If I run into the other articles on the side-box again, I'll post them here.

[King carp]

Is it possible that the slight weight shift of cartridges during feeding had an effect on accuracy? Maybe when using some of the unorthodox positions during competition? Just guessing.