Why did the US go with the Krag design?

[macqnj107@aol.com]

Some say that the Krag, a fine rifle IMHO, only lasted for about 10 years in US service largely because it couldn’t be readily loaded with any kind of charger or stripper clip (I think the rimmed cartridge case was an issue too).

For many years I’ve been wondering why they didn’t go with any of the other designs in use around the world like the Manlicher, Mauser, or Lee designs that could be loaded with some type of charger or striper clip? I’m thinking that the other designers wouldn’t grant license to manufacture in this company but I’ve never seen anything in print.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Zac952]

The Krag was adopted at a time where the US was looking for a rifle that could be used as a single shot and have a magazine held in reserve for cavalry charges and other emergencies. The krag was chosen over other designs because the US was in love with the magazine design, it could be topped off with a round ready to go in the chamber. The rimmed cartridge was preferred as it is easier to set up headspace on a mass production scale, it also was preferred as it eased retrieval from the cartridge belt.

[macqnj107@aol.com]

Thanks for your reply, but I’m not sure it satisfies my curiosity.

The Krag’s replacement, based on a Mauser design, also had a similar magazine cut-off that allowed single shot operation with a full magazine and loaded with stripper clips, and with clips you wouldn’t need to withdraw cartridges form cartridge belt loops. They finally had to steel the Mauser design because Mauser wouldn’t authorize US manufacture – a major requirement for US martial arms.

The Mauser design wouldn’t allow a rimmed cartridge which the US had designed previously, but the Lee (as in Lee-Enfield) would; and early models likewise had a magazine cut-off. Would Lee permit US manufacture? I don’t know; they did with earlier designs for the US Navy. Did something in previous dealings with Lee sour US thinking?

The Manlicher design, using an en-bloc clip that ejects from the bottom of the magazine after the last round is chambered, is another design that worked well with rimmed cartridges (Mosin-Nagant). However, I don’t know if a magazine cut-off could be or was ever used with the Manlicher design. Could a cut-off be added? I don’t know that either. Would they allow US manufacture? IMHO a mute point without the mag cutoff.

I don’t think ease of cartridge headspace by itself would be a significant issue with everything else that could be gained by going with a cut-off magazine rifle that could be quickly reloaded. Troops fumbling with loose cartridges while under fire, pulling them one-at-a-time from belt loops and getting them into the loading port seems to me, a 32-year Army veteran, like asking for trouble.

I believe it boils down to a combination of things:
1) Need to use the US-designed 30/40 rimmed cartridge
2) Need to use a magazine cut-off
3) No desire to design an entirely new US weapon
4) Ability/permission to manufacture in US

Keep in mind that around this time Canada was fooling around with the Ross design; for whatever reason they didn’t like the Lee designs that the rest of the Commonwealth was going with. Did they perceive some flaw in the design that the US also saw and chose to steer clear?

Again, I’m anxious for your thoughts.

[butlersrangers]

The U.S. Ordnance Department had and tested both Rimmed and Rimless versions of the Frankford Arsenal experimental .30 cal. cartridges. Both cartridges were tested in Krag prototypes.
The U.S. Ordnance Department opted for the Rimmed version because of a better seal and increased safety in the event of a cartridge-case failure. (The British went the same direction in 1888).

In 1892 & 1893 the U.S. Rifle Test Board was given the parameters of selecting a rifle with good action speed when used as a single-shot, with magazine contents held in reserve, no need for clips or chargers, and a magazine that could be replenished with the chamber loaded and no need to open the action.

Many fine rifle systems did not meet the Ordnance Department prerequisites. The Mauser system tested was similar to the model 1891 Argentine Mauser (and not the Spanish model 1893). The Lee system tested was the Lee-Speed with rear-locking lugs. Changing spare sheet metal magazine was not liked by U.S. Ordnance.
(The British did not incorporate 'charger-loading' until 1902).

Lots of things were new in 1892/1893. The U.S. did not have a viable 'smokeless' rifle powder. Small diameter 'jacketed' projectiles and barrel steels & rifling types were proving very problematic. Mercuric priming and short brass cartridge case life were a surprize.
U.S. Ordnance wanted a quality arm, that could be built at Springfield Armory with interchangeable parts. They wanted to get things right the first time!
Our hindsight tells us they made some miscalculations. So did most major powers in the 1888 to 1895 era. Most countries had to modernize their weaponry during the 1898 to 1914 era.

If you read material on the testing that lead to the adoption of the U.S. Krag in 1892 & 1893, you will better understand the thought process, misconceptions, state of military tactics, and practical realities.

[Parashooter]

. . .The Manlicher design, using an en-bloc clip that ejects from the bottom of the magazine after the last round is chambered, is another design that worked well with rimmed cartridges (Mosin-Nagant). . .

The Nagant magazine doesn't use an en-bloc clip. Have you ever loaded a Mosin?

[macqnj107@aol.com]

Yes, you’re right. I was picturing the Mosin profile in my mind, thinking it looked like manlicher magazines and forgot about using stripper clips.

Sorry. Thanks for calling me out on that.

[Knute1]

A "magazine rifle" was looked down upon and thought inferior to the Krag-Jorgensen design. Old generals of the single shot era pictured in their minds the needless waste of ammo due to rapidity of fire. Deliberate, accurate shooting was more desirable than throwing lots of lead down range. They had more of a "make every shot count" mentality, even though the Krag was originally not capable of windage adjustments. That eventually was corrected.

Rimmed vs. rimless? They both did well in the ordnance reports. There was concern that if the rimless cartridges were used in other weapons that there could be extraction issues.

You really want to get serious about the rationale behind the selection of the Krag-Jorgensen? Then read the "Annual Report of the Chief of Ordnance to the Secretary of War, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1892". I suggest starting at page 181. See the link below:

https://books.google.com/books?id=uS4-A ... &q&f=false

Also, Parkhurst had a design for loading the Krag. Other members of this board have devices, also, for quicker loading. It can be done. There was interest, then it was dropped. There was a lot of backstage happenings with the Krag-Jorgensen.

[butlersrangers]

Knute, your last post may be a bit confusing to some readers. It can be taken to indicate that the Krag-Jorgensen was not a "magazine rifle".
The Krag is of course a "Magazine Rifle". The whole purpose of the Ordnance Board was to select a Magazine Rifle for the U.S. Army.

[Zac952]

One thing to remember when pondering why the Krag was chosen in the US was logistics. Many people balk at the idea of conserving ammo, in the modern time this is hard to comprehend, with motorized transports, cargo planes, practically unlimited resupply. Back then anything and everything for the US was packed by horse, ammo resupply in Europe could be supplemented by rail, in the US rail was few and far between, when the US adopted the Krag they were a frontier army not planning on foreign conflict, in the frontier most of the battle was suppling the soldier with food, water, ammo, and the other necessities to keep him in fighting shape. This explains why the US was looking at a magazine rifle that would be loaded one shot at a time well holding a magazine in reserve. In my honest opinion there was better designs at the time of adoption, but the rational that went toward justifying why the Krag was chosen is obvious, and without having future knowledge of what was on the horizon the krag was most likely the best choice for the US. For example hindsight being 2020 why would the US after ww1 choose to stay with the 1903 when they had many more 1917s? I mean if we stayed with the 1917 and started development on a semi automatic rifle wouldn't that have more prepared us for ww2? Knowing what happened in the future skews your idea of the past. Staying with the 1903 is because the US had government tooling and logistic system to support the 1903, although I may prefer the 1917 over the 1903 mainly due to its far superior battle sights and ergonomics this doesn't make it a better rifle for the US military when you consider everything else that goes into having a successful campaign.

[Knute1]

Your right BR. The Krag-Jorgensen was/is a magazine rifle. A magazine rifle capable of single loading. We have much discussion on the naming of the Krag-Jorgensen design rifle.

The 1893 Mauser was a magazine rifle and a magazine rifle only. It was scorned as such when some specimens were captured during the Spanish-American War. It took a while for the upper brass to accept that the Mauser being clip fed was an advantage over the Krag. Then of course the 1903 Springfield was a clip fed magazine rifle, but held on to the single loading feature for a while.