Would You Accept the Krag In 1892?

[RickyG]

I would accept the krag now...

[scottz63]

Going from to single shot to a magazine fed in the late 1800's, yes absolutely.

[Knute1]

The Trapdoor was a great single shot rifle. It served right after the Civil Was in various calibers up until the Krag started being manufactured. The old regime in the Army wanted to hang unto the Trapdoor longer and had the 45-70 made with smokeless powder to extend the Trapdoor's life. But the Krag was getting deeper entrenched by then.

But my real premise, asked a little differently, is what magazine rifle would you want to replace the Trapdoor with? A foreign made design or US design? Could you get around the fact that the Krag was foreign designed? Many of the period did not like the idea of a foreign design at all. The military spent much energy defending it as an "American" rifle, but I believe they lost that argument in the end. They insisted on calling it the U.S. magazine rifle, but as time went on they called it the Krag-Jorgensen. It did become accepted by the masses with time.

And the 45-70 was/is big and ugly. But you'll find it on today's shelf before you find the 30-40 in many instances, albeit with better powders and bullet designs from the originals. I'm not defending anything here. Just trying to give a different viewpoint.

[Knute1]

Because I can't help myself from going down a rabbit hole, and I believe most have likely no more interest in this, I felt this needed to be added for further understanding as the sentiment of the Krag while it was the service rifle. The link below is an article by a 1st Lt. in an April 1902 "RECREATION" periodical. I don't understand what the author is referring to with models 92 and 95, perhaps the earlier Krags (?) Nonetheless, he is trying to set the record straight on the pedigree of the rifle and by which it needs to be referred as. Note that the author, Lt. Charles Ezra Stodter commanded Troop K of the 9th Cavalry Regiment (a buffalo soldier regiment) and was directly on Roosevelt's Rough Riders left flank when taking San Juan Hill.

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

[scottz63]

"Scored 74 out of 75 points with 15 consecutive shots at 500 yards." Dang!!!

[butlersrangers]

This officer's experience, as reported in 1902, reveals the Krag rifle was well liked by U.S. soldiers in the field.

[waterman]

"Scored 74 out of 75 points with 15 consecutive shots at 500 yards." Dang!!!

But what was the target?

[Dick Hosmer]

Here's another angle:

No, I would not have accepted the Krag in 1892. I would not have had to. There did not have to be a U.S. Krag (I apologize for the heresy).

The venrable trapdoor should have been scrapped in 1882! This from a man who has had a fascination with them, and a love for them, his entire adult life.

We should have gotten on the Lee/Remington band-wagon from the git-go. Lee's basic design WAS adopted by the Brits, and continuously upgraded (including a change to 'smokeless' powder) over the next 75 years or so. Take a look at the M1885 adopted by the Navy. A strong bolt action, chambered for the existing service cartridge, five-round detachable magazine of the style still in use TODAY!. Single shot fire (doctrine of the time) was easily obtainable, just by not installing the mag, and a cut-off was later devised anyhow.

A lot of people harp about the Winchester. Truth is, they could never pass the Army's tests, beginning with their model 1873. They were under-powered and (relatively) fragile. Even the monstrous 1876 could not match the ballistics of the trapdoor. The 1895 was on its' edge with the .30-06, and still not really suitable as a first-line battle rifle.

[scottz63]

Good point. The M1885 would have been a very good option. I'm suspecting some sort of under the table thing happened there.

Also, why not the M1899 Lee-Remington, chambered in 30-40 Krag? Already in the "right" caliber with 2 locking lugs on the bolt head and a safety lug at the rear.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles ... -lee-1899/

[butlersrangers]

Scott - The model 1899 Remington-Lee action was not around in 1892 & 1893, when the Krag-Jorgensen was tested and adopted.
If it had been, IMO, it would have failed the stated criteria and the function & endurance testing of these trials.

The Lee looks sweet! I own two model 1899 R-L rifles. One is a Michigan N.G. rifle and the other is a military style rifle, that was altered and restocked for hunting.
I like the R-L and have some personal experience with it. The model 1899 is not in the same league as a Krag!.

The 1899 R-L was a bitch to manufacture and required 'hand fitting' of the complicated bolt, bolt-head and barrel.
It lacked interchangeability of major bolt parts, had a very fragile stock, and was a clumsy action with fragile small parts.
The R-L five-round magazines, for this small-bore "smokeless" powder rifle, were rather delicate with a "C" shaped follower-spring.
As Dick Hosmer stated, the R-L is a single shot, without the magazine being inserted.
The 'cut-off' is actually a spring-plate, that prevents a cartridge from falling through the magazine opening, while single-loading the rifle.
When a magazine is inserted, the spring-plate is pushed aside.

The State of Michigan purchased 2,000 model 1899 rifles, with four magazines for each rifle, for the M.N.G.
The loaded magazines were carried in a Mills Belt, that had pockets to hold the four magazines, plus, individual cartridge loops.
After each magazine was used, replaced, and expended, the model 1899 became a single-shot rifle.

The Michigan National Guard found the Model 1899 Remington-Lee rifle problematic and was quite happy, when it was replaced with the Krag rifle, around 1902 to 1904.

The British successfully reworked an earlier Lee 'black-powder' bolt-action, with simpler rear locking-lugs. They improved the ergonomics, robustness, and ease of manufacture of the whole system. Yet, this very good rifle, in the form of the Lee-Speed rifle, 'lost out' to the Krag-Jorgensen, in Danish and U.S. rifle trials.
In the U.S. case, rejection was probably, in part, to a dislike of the Lee magazine and the idea & cost of spare magazines, for a military weapon.

It is hard to 'unknow', what we know, and put ourselves back in 1892.

(The British did improve their Lee magazine from a single-stack 8 round to a double-stack 10 round, utilized a rugged 'cut-off', and around 1903 adapted the rifle to charger loading).