Early Krag Review

[Knute1]

Here is an early review of the Krag-Jorgensen from FOREST AND STREAM in the September 8, 1892 issue. For one, I found it interesting that a new name better be taken, the earliest I've seen it being a problem. For two, I don't understand the barrel sleeve thing. First I heard of it.

Here is the hard to read link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fo ... frontcover

[FredC]

The author seems to be a grouch. I have never seen the barrel sleeve that he hates. I have only had a few Krags in my hands and ever one had the sights screwed to the barrel not the invisible steel barrel sleeve. Must have been a later article that mentioned the magazine causing inaccuracy. I can not say I would agree with that idea. The increased vertical height 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 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.

[butlersrangers]

Knute & FredC - The Danish Krag has a sheet-metal jacket that encases the full length of the barrel. The air-space between the jacket and 'real' barrel keeps the jacket cool, so it can serve as a hand-guard.

This was a feature on a number of early smokeless powder service rifles. (The 1888 German Commission rifle and 1889 Belgian Mauser have similar barrel-jackets).

The "collar" mentioned in the article is a reference the Danish Krag barrel jacket.

BTW - The barrel jacket had some serious downsides, like added weight, a trap for moisture, maybe it increased barrel heat, and probably was cold on the hand in winter.

Some American writers (in the fake news tradition) sure got on the Band Wagon to trash the New and Foreign Krag-Jorgensen!

The Danish Krag was one of many rifles submitted for the U.S. Ordnance Trials. It was a very different Krag model that excelled in the tests. It's like the writer went out of his way to confuse models and bash the adopted Krag.

[Knute1]

The article in this rag showed photos of the Danish rifle with the horizontally opening side-box and not the downward opening side-box as dictated by the Ordnance Department for the U.S. Army rifle. So, as BR pointed out, the writer was looking at the wrong rifle configuration, not what was adopted. So there is some misinformation in the article. Perhaps the writer never saw the U.S. design and didn't know there were changes made, being too hasty in his judgement. That explains my confusion. Thanks.

But the writer did have some foresight or insight of the rifle's name and its (non)acceptance due to it being foreign. Even though the name came to be the U.S. Magazine Rifle, it didn't stick. Perhaps the names Krag-Jorgensen or Krag were more "romantic" to the younger and more accepting crowd (mispronounced as they did it), but not to the older crowd holding on to their old Springfields.

[FredC]

Some American writers (in the fake news tradition) sure got on the Band Wagon to trash the New and Foreign Krag-Jorgensen!
The Danish Krag was one of many rifles submitted for the U.S. Ordnance Trials. It was a very different Krag model that excelled in the tests. It's like the writer went out of his way to confuse models and bash the adopted Krag.

Say it ain't so. People lied and twisted the truth back then and got it in national publications?!?! We have been told that only happens today?!?

Butlersrangers, was the sight on the Danish really attached to the sleeve and not the barrel? I guess if the sleeve was attached to the barrel near the rear sight it would have been fairly rigid at that point.

[butlersrangers]

'FredC' - I have never owned a Danish Krag-Jorgensen or taken one apart. I believe the rear of the 'barrel-jacket' is threaded and screws onto a collar fixed to the barrel, just in front of the action. At the muzzle, the barrel jacket has a bushing, that allows the real barrel to slip through, to accommodate barrel 'expansion'. (I have heard or read that these jacketed-barrels on Krags, Mausers, and Commission rifles, shoot very well).

I believe the Danish rear-sight is sweat-soldered and screwed to the barrel-jacket. The KCA "Home Page" has pictures of some Danish Krags.

Between, 1890 and 1892, a U.S. Ordnance Department - "Magazine Rifle Test Board" evaluated 53 rifles for possible adoption; the rifles were given test numbers. Six of the rifles were Krag- Jorgensens.

Trial Rifle #2 was a Krag-Jorgensen (K-J No. 1, in 8mm) from Denmark.

Trial Rifles number 17 (K-J No. 2), #18 (K-J No. 3), #19 (K-J No. 4), and #28 (K-J No. 5), were rifles, submitted by Capt. O. Krag, Kongsberg, Norway. They were all chambered for a rimmed .30 caliber cartridge, developed by Frankford Arsenal.

Trial Rifle number 29 (Krag-Jorgensen No. 6) was like Trial Rifle number 28, except it was chambered for an experimental Rimless .30 caliber cartridge, from Frankford Arsenal.

The recommendation of the Board was that Trial Rifle #28, (Krag-Jorgensen Number 5), be adopted.

There was Outrage, from Press, Politicians, and American Manufacturers.

In 1893, there was further testing of 14 American manufactured rifles. None were regarded as superior to Trial Rifle #28, (Krag-Jorgensen rifle No.5) ... err ... "U.S. Magazine Rifle, caliber .30, Model of 1892"

[butlersrangers]

In Mallory's "Krag Rifle Story", 2nd edition, (pages 46-48), Norwegian author, Karl Egil Hanevik, wrote a chapter on prototype & trial rifles.
Hanevik speculated that two rifles, in the Springfield Armory collection, were Krags that were used in the 1892 U.S. Magazine Rifle Trials.

An 1889 Danish Krag, serial #63, may have been Trial Rifle number 2 - (a.k.a. Krag-Jorgensen #1).

A prototype Krag, serial #100, in 7.5mm cal., may have been Trial Rifle number 28 - (a.k.a. Krag-Jorgensen #5 -?).

Attached are two B&W-photos of rifles, serial #63 and #100, likely prototype KRAGS from the Springfield Armory archives. Also, two color photos, taken at S.A. (in 2017) by "Fal Grunt" / Nathaniel Myers, of SPAR697 - a prototype Krag-Jogensen rifle, Serial #100; this is possibly 'The Grandpa of U.S. Krags', Krag-Jorgensen No. 5 - Trial Rifle Number 28!

IMHO - U.S. Ordnance officers may have been seduced by Norwegian Machining and Tiger Stripe Walnut.

[butlersrangers]

The Danish Krag barrel-jacket, with the rear-sight missing:

[Knute1]

Another unfavorable review from the periodical The Iron Age dated May 18, 1893.

"The Government Board at Springfield, Mass., to whom is assigned the duty of securing a magazine gun for the use of the Army, appears to have much difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, although preparation is making. It is claimed that a portion of the $400,000 appropriated for the provision of the service with an arm is being expended on machinery intended for the making of the Krag-Jorgensen gun. This expenditure, it is said, will be wasted in case that arm is not finally adopted."

I earlier got the impression that the Ordnance Department was slow-walking preparation for manufacturing the Krag rifle although it was directed to test the American inventions again to supplant the Krag. It appears to me they were going through the motions to appease Congress and American inventors with little intention of changing their minds. Can't blame them too much as they had already done extensive trials of all submitted guns.